All Debates
You are browsing through all debates. You can refine the results by using the drop-down boxes above. You can view more information about each debate by clicking Show Details at right.

Postmodernism ultimately defeats itself as one of it's primary axioms is that as reality is subjective each individual will form a narrative that describes a reality that is predicated on furthering his arbitrarily determined group's interests at the expense of other arbitrarily determined groups, this axiom is in and of itself a narrative that describes a reality and as such (according to postmodernism) a tool of furthering the Postmodernist's interests at the expense of other groups.

A business does what it perceives to be most profitable, losing potential customers due to them not having the capital needed in order to be customers as they're unemployed and have no source of income isn't profitable, therefore if automation really led to mass unemployment there wouldn't be any automation.If we reach an era in which some business owners do not need the market in order to substantiate and accumulate wealth as robotic labor is more efficient we have nothing to worry about because other business owners will take their place as the factors that led to the emergence of the market in the first place wouldn't vanish.&nbsp;

There is no such thing as specific or defined "Means of Production", they aren't some scarce objects that the so called 'bourgeois' confiscated or found laying around as Marxists tend to imply, anything can be a means of production and humans utilize and do anything they can in order to produce and profit. The only constant variable that exists in any function that leads to production is humans, and as such the only way a state can own production is through the subjugation of it's people. That's why virtually all attempts at initiating communism resulted in totalitarian hellholes.

**DISCLAIMER:** This is an actual argument I heard at my university.Argument: "An entity that is comprised of smaller individual entities doesn't exist as each individual entity doesn't constitute the original entity by itself, as such the original entity must be a social construct and as everything is comprised of smaller things nothing exists and everything is a social construct."Refutation: For something to be real it only needs to be independent of perception and as there are entities that will exist under the absence of perception we can affirm that certain entities do exist.&nbsp;

The modern left argues that due to preferability being subjective (different people prefer different things) there is no metric on which we can objectively measure the preferability of different cultures, and that as such we shouldn't have preference for any particular culture. However, this is untrue, there are universal preferences among all humans, such as avoiding pain, getting wealthy, surviving, and generally improving living standards. These are completely tangible and measurable metrics and we can observe that certain cultural behaviors can further or hinge these universal preferences. As such it makes sense that we should adopt and preserve the cultural behaviors that are best at substantiating these universal preferences while abandoning and discouraging those that aren't.&nbsp;

Social democracy is a political approach in which the general citizenry receives extensive welfare programs and social benefits, people that support this political approach do so on the basis of alleviating the poor of their burdens, however this approach and argument are problematic for a couple of reasons.&nbsp;There is on such thing as absolute poverty, the reason you consider certain people poor and deserving of social benefits is their position on the socioeconomic scale, which is in polar opposition to the wealthiest of people. 500 years ago the people you consider poor now would be considered wealthy as they wouldn't be positioned at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. This matters because it doesn't matter how many social benefits you bestow upon the poor they will still be at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale which leads to them deserving more and more social benefits, this causes a couple of problems as the extensive taxation the government has to partake in in order to cover the costs of such extensive welfare programs stagnates the economy as money that the government confiscates isn't money that is circulating in the economy, stimulating the industry and production, and passing from hand to hand. Which leads to everyone being generally poorer. Additionally The government doesn't even make enough tax revenue to cover such extensive welfare programs, it relies on loans and printing money in order to do so, which will Inevitably lead to a recession and inflation.

If genetic difference is what's used to determine a social group each individual is his own social group as there is a difference between each individual's genome, if genetic similarity is what's used to determine a social group all humans are one social group as there are genetic similarities between all humans. I'm not arguing against communalism or having no group identity, I'm arguing against genetics, having anything to do with a community or group identity.

People that support the confiscation&nbsp;of the "means of production"&nbsp;tend to think that the "means of production" are magical objects that allow people to create more with less thus breaking the law of conservation of energy. evidently, that isn't the case, else there wouldn't&nbsp;be a law of conservation of energy which states that the amount of energy in the universe stays the same. The "means of production" or in other word the industry, is a function of individuals that invest in the production of goods on the assessment that enough people will purchase their goods thus providing them with a profit margin, nothing is stopping any group or anyone from investing in the production of goods, so what are the people that advocate the confiscation&nbsp;of the "means of production" really advocate? theft.

"Gender equality" defines all men as a collective and all women as a separate&nbsp;collective and than tries to negate differences between these collectives, this is absolutely meaningless as you can define any arbitrary group of people as a collective&nbsp;and any two variables you compare will be different as nothing can be exactly the same. For example, instead of defining men and women as distinct collectives we can define brown-eyed people as a collective and green-eyed people as a separate one, compare them, and we'll obviously find that one of our collectives is doing better as they can't be exactly the same, so should we have eye-color equality?&nbsp;Fighting the unfair disadvantaging of women (which there is no evidence of in the west, at least in the systemic level) is legitimate in my opinion, but you can't fight inequality as nothing can ever be equal.

The current economic and political systems that are practiced in western countries have provided the general populace with the best living conditions ever experienced by mankind. now, I'm not implying that our economic and political systems are beyond criticism or aren't subject to positive change, I am willing to discuss alternatives, but arbitrarily destroying what has provided us with virtually everything we have won't lead to anything positive.

Businesses profit by selling products and there are two main factors that determine whether people will purchase a product, these factors are affordability (the cheaper your product is, the more people will buy it) and quality (the better your product is, the more people will buy it) now in order for your product to be marketable you need 1 or 2 of 2 things, it needs to be cheaper and/or better than what the competition is offering, else people will buy from the competition. Henceforth the market is in a constant competition of providing us with Exponentially cheaper and better products.

fascism is a combination of:
&nbsp;1) tribalism- fascists believe society is divided into groups, the individual doesn't exist.&nbsp;every action an individual takes and every belief an individual has is a part of a greater conspiracy that is attributed to the individual's&nbsp;arbitrarily prescribed group.&nbsp;2) ideological dogma- fascists will force you to think and believe what they do, there is no room for dissenting opinions and different ideas.
&nbsp;3) authoritarianism- you must obey the chain of command and you can never question your orders.
&nbsp;Antifa exhibits all 3 components of fascism.

capitalism was forcefully implemented by a select few, Why would the many wilfully&nbsp;consent to a system which rewards only the few? You might as well demand "proof" that monarchies were forcefully implemented by a select few. Certain truths are rendered self-evident by the law of reason.

our original western cultural consensus about sexuality was monogamous as when men have a family to take care of they have an incentive to be productive, which intern benefits the entirety of society and strengthen its survivability. With the destruction of our cultural consensus, polygamy has been legitimized and as a result of women's natural attraction to dominant and aggressive men they gravitate around the minority of dominant and aggressive men, which results in most men having no hopes of reproducing which consequently demolishes their need to be productive.

As far as I understand communism is a societal state in which each member of society contributes the entirety of their labor to a common inventory which each member of society has equal access to. If that is the case can I take more than I contribute to the common inventory? If true that means someone else is left with less than he contributed in which case why would that person want to be part of a communist society? Can I only take as much as I contribute? if that is the case why be part of a communist society in the first place?

our original western cultural consensus about sexuality was monogamous as when men have a family to take care of they have an incentive to be productive, which intern benefits the entirety of society and strengthen its survivability. With the destruction of our cultural consensus, polygamy has been legitimized and as a result of women's natural attraction to dominant and aggressive men they gravitate around the minority of dominant and aggressive men, which results in most men having no hopes of reproducing which consequently demolishes their need to be productive.

capitalism was forcefully implemented by a select few, Why would the many wilfully consent to a system which rewards only the few? You might as well demand "proof" that monarchies were forcefully implemented by a select few. Certain truths are rendered self-evident by the law of reason.